ClamRussel wrote:I'm as big a Canucks fan as the next guy....but the Flames got ripped on that replay decision. That was a goal, Smith missed the puck, Miller put it in off his glove. We'll take it, Vancouver is usually on the wrong end of those calls.

Clam, i disagree totally. It depends on which camera view you want to believe.

They showed it so many times that maybe someone could get a doubt but imo on one view you can't see clearly that it was the stick but very clearly on two other views. In no case i could clearly see the glove redirecting it.

I was at the game last night and finally got to see them win for the first time in a long time. I usually only get to one game a year and it's been a loss for about 5 years running!

As for the goal/no goal. From the replay on the big screen it looked like the stick got it. But the review took FOREVER so I guess it wasn't that clear. The on ice call was a tip from a high stick so it had to be conclusive to over turn it. If I was a flames fan I might feel jipped but as a Nucks fan I'm OK with it

The boys over at CalPuck are always good for a laugh - they so hate the Nucks that it's fun to see them tear their e-hair out / get the man-ginas in a bunch when they lose to Vancouver. Worse yet is the ignominy of being bitch-slapped by the "sisters" once again, and Iggy being held in check by AHL-level players. Schadenfreude truly is a sweet, sweet tonic with a lime twist.

They did have a good point, though - six of their last seven wins have been against teams that aren't even in the Top Eight in their respective conferences, so really, they've had it pretty easy in December.

ClamRussel wrote:I'm as big a Canucks fan as the next guy....but the Flames got ripped on that replay decision. That was a goal, Smith missed the puck, Miller put it in off his glove. We'll take it, Vancouver is usually on the wrong end of those calls.

I'm keen to agree, but that's just how the cookie crumbles. Sometimes things go your way, and others they don't. It's not like the NHL is out to deliberately blow a call to allow a certain team to win. Every team has good and bad calls for and against, if the NHL was 100% right on every reviewable goal they wouldn't be in the slightest bit interesting.

The no-goal was, to me, the right call for the wrong reason. I don't think it's controversial that a referee can change his call before he "goes upstairs" (which shifts the burden of proof for the purposes of the review), though McGeough obviously should have signalled it better. But to me, the replay was conclusive. It doesn't matter that there were angles where it looked less certain -- there were also angles where it looked completely certain. Since both obviously can't be true, a less clear replay doesn't overrule conclusivity from a different angle unless it actually shows the opposite, which it didn't in this case (no replay clearly showed the stick not touching). A bank robber caught clearly on film doesn't get off because there was another camera in which his picture was blurrier.

The puck's trajectory changed precisely as you'd expect it to if that stick hit it. If Miller tips it, it flutters up (or shifts course very slightly), it doesn't angle perfectly downward in a straight line. And I think Craig Simpson's point about the celebration was bang-on -- while it can't be used as any sort of proof for the review, I do think it was proof that the right call was made.

Was that Craig Simpson?
What a calpuck homer he is.
At one point he states about the match up of their top line against our checkers.......thats a battle they (flames) should easily win.
It seemed all night, all he could gush about was the flames........asshat.

sk8er wrote:Was that Craig Simpson?What a calpuck homer he is.At one point he states about the match up of their top line against our checkers.......thats a battle they (flames) should easily win.It seemed all night, all he could gush about was the flames........asshat.

Well, if he is, Simpson is getting no love at all from CalPuck... Some of those guys think that Hughson is just as bad a homer as Tommy.

Jyrki21 wrote:The no-goal was, to me, the right call for the wrong reason. I don't think it's controversial that a referee can change his call before he "goes upstairs" (which shifts the burden of proof for the purposes of the review), though McGeough obviously should have signalled it better. But to me, the replay was conclusive. It doesn't matter that there were angles where it looked less certain -- there were also angles where it looked completely certain. Since both obviously can't be true, a less clear replay doesn't overrule conclusivity from a different angle unless it actually shows the opposite, which it didn't in this case (no replay clearly showed the stick not touching). A bank robber caught clearly on film doesn't get off because there was another camera in which his picture was blurrier.

The puck's trajectory changed precisely as you'd expect it to if that stick hit it. If Miller tips it, it flutters up (or shifts course very slightly), it doesn't angle perfectly downward in a straight line. And I think Craig Simpson's point about the celebration was bang-on -- while it can't be used as any sort of proof for the review, I do think it was proof that the right call was made.

They said later on HNIC that the "replays from Toronto were inconclusive as to who tipped the puck in therefore they went with the original call made by McGeough on the ice" .... clearly though on the replay (I thought anyways)McGeough signaled a goal ... based on that theory then I would say that the Canucks got a break and the goal should have been awarded.

Whether or not it was actually tipped by the glove or the stick only those two guys will really know ...

There are two refs, McGeough was screened on the deflection, but Sutherland obviously thought it was a high stick.

I would expect that, after the refs conferred following the goal, McGeough told Toronto the on-ice call was a deflection off a high stick.

I too didn't see anything 'definitive' but the one camera angle from behind the net seemed to show the puck accelerating downwards as if from the stick and, to me, Simpson's celebration tipped the balance.

Jyrki21 wrote:The no-goal was, to me, the right call for the wrong reason. I don't think it's controversial that a referee can change his call before he "goes upstairs" (which shifts the burden of proof for the purposes of the review), though McGeough obviously should have signalled it better. But to me, the replay was conclusive. It doesn't matter that there were angles where it looked less certain -- there were also angles where it looked completely certain. Since both obviously can't be true, a less clear replay doesn't overrule conclusivity from a different angle unless it actually shows the opposite, which it didn't in this case (no replay clearly showed the stick not touching). A bank robber caught clearly on film doesn't get off because there was another camera in which his picture was blurrier.

The puck's trajectory changed precisely as you'd expect it to if that stick hit it. If Miller tips it, it flutters up (or shifts course very slightly), it doesn't angle perfectly downward in a straight line. And I think Craig Simpson's point about the celebration was bang-on -- while it can't be used as any sort of proof for the review, I do think it was proof that the right call was made.

Actually, your logic is good but I think you're looking at it wrong.
There was one replay that cleary showed Miller's glove deflects the puck THEN the stick waves by and the puck doesn't change direction at all. Thats the call that had me convinced, it was clear as day. All the other angles were inconclusive.
Lets face it people, if the shoe was on the other foot there would be hella whining & sniveling going on here.